Israel. Lebanon. What's going on? Yesterday, a group of us gathered around to debate what it all means. We agreed on some things, disagreed on others. I think we settled on the fact that the histories of these places are tied to other histories, including our own. And that to understand what's happening today, we need to be reminded of what happened in years past.
So it seemed fitting to point out that NCES just released a new study about who's teaching history to the nation's high schoolers. In short, it says that most high school students (86 percent) are taught by teachers with state certification in social studies. Poor kids get short shrift again and are more likely to be taught by uncertified or "out-of-field" teachers, but the numbers still aren't bad. On the other hand, the study also reports that fewer than half of high school history students are taught by teachers who majored or minored in history.
I wondered, are there fewer college students majoring in history? I checked and it seems that, in terms of bachelor's degrees, history has declined a lot since the 70s. It actually hit its all time low in 1985, and has inched up slowly since then. Still, the numbers are low- just 2 percent of all degrees earned.
Of course, you don't necessarily need a history degree to teach history well. But still I think we might all be better served by paying a little more attention to history.
Friday, August 04, 2006
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Blogging at its Best
Sometimes the blogosphere (I try to peruse both its education and parts of its political subspheres with some regularity) seems so nasty, trivial, personal, and reactionary that I wish it would go away. But two recent posts by Joe Williams (at the Chalkboard) and Leo Casey (at EdWize), both men I respect very much and know are deeply committed to the wellbeing and education of children (particularly disadvantaged youngsters), remind me why this is a worthwhile medium. In a post Monday, Joe asked why teachers are still treated with so little respect, what respect in the workplace really means for teachers, and why unions haven't been more successful in raising the status of and respect for teachers. Leo responds by arguing why unions are necessary to protect teachers, students, and public education. Whether or not you agree with them, both posts are thoughtful, humane, and the combination exemplifies the kind of dialogue blogging--at its best--enables.
Free to Be, You and Me (Vouchers, evolution, and other stuff edition)
In a fascinating example of appropriating the arguments of one's opponents and subverting them to his own aims, Cato's Neal McCluskey posits vouchers as a solution to the evolution vs. creationism/intelligent design brouhaha that's been getting so many panties in a twist in states (esp. Kansas) and school districts lately. Matthew Yglesias (from whose blog I came across the piece, not myself being in the habit of perusing Cato's website, since I already know exactly what they're going to say--vouchers are the solution!--in response to every imaginable educational issue), has an interesting take on this.
My response is that this is a great example of why vouchers or other forms of increased choice must be accompanied by public accountability. I strongly believe it's a good thing for parents to be able to choose schools for their children that match with youngsters' unique personalities and itnerests, respect families' values and heritages, and use teaching methods that the parents endorse. But I also believe, even more strongly, that the public has both an equity and economic interest in ensuring that all children master essential knowledge and skills--particularly when they're being educated on the taxpayers' dime. If my neighbor wants to send her kid to an Esperanto bilingual school that organizes instruction around organic farming, I don't necessarily have a problem with that. I wouldn't send my hypothetical kids there, but, then, I'm not her. But I do have a huge problem if the kids aren't learning to read and do math at the level they need to be. That's where state standards and accountability systems come into play.
Similarly, I don't necessarily have a problem if my neighbor wants to send her kids to a school that teaches intelligent design. But I do have a problem if they aren't getting adequate instruction in biology to think about the increasingly complex issues--stem cell research, DNA evidence, the impacts of environmental change on biological diversity--that adults need to be able to think about to engage in public debates in our society today.
This is a little difficult because science standards are inherently a more complicated idea than standards in reading and math, particularly when it comes to issues of curriculum sequencing, and Kansas illustrates the political difficulty in establishing quality science standards. There's a bit of a tension here between my desire to avoid politically toxic and distracting state level debates over things like evolution, and my conviction that choice needs to be accompanied by accountability. But, ultimately, I think there's a way to square this circle if we think well about it and allow our concept of accountability to broaden somewhat.
Finally, Matt also points out an odd quirk of education policy debates that's one of the reasons I find the topic intellectually interesting. In a culture and goverment based strongly around principles of individual liberty, rights, and freedom, children occupy an unusual position. Because children's immaturity prevents them from being able to fully exercise their freedoms, certain adults (parents), have the right to make decisions for them. But these parental rights are also mixed with remnants of a long common law history that treated children essentially as chattel. And, in the past century there's been an increasing recognition that society at large has an interest in children's well-being and in developing their abilities to fully participate in the economy and democracy as adults. As a result, issues involving children force us to struggle with what we really mean when we think and talk about freedom, how to reconcile the competing claims of different individual rights and public interests, and what society's role should be in defending those who cannot speak for themselves.
My response is that this is a great example of why vouchers or other forms of increased choice must be accompanied by public accountability. I strongly believe it's a good thing for parents to be able to choose schools for their children that match with youngsters' unique personalities and itnerests, respect families' values and heritages, and use teaching methods that the parents endorse. But I also believe, even more strongly, that the public has both an equity and economic interest in ensuring that all children master essential knowledge and skills--particularly when they're being educated on the taxpayers' dime. If my neighbor wants to send her kid to an Esperanto bilingual school that organizes instruction around organic farming, I don't necessarily have a problem with that. I wouldn't send my hypothetical kids there, but, then, I'm not her. But I do have a huge problem if the kids aren't learning to read and do math at the level they need to be. That's where state standards and accountability systems come into play.
Similarly, I don't necessarily have a problem if my neighbor wants to send her kids to a school that teaches intelligent design. But I do have a problem if they aren't getting adequate instruction in biology to think about the increasingly complex issues--stem cell research, DNA evidence, the impacts of environmental change on biological diversity--that adults need to be able to think about to engage in public debates in our society today.
This is a little difficult because science standards are inherently a more complicated idea than standards in reading and math, particularly when it comes to issues of curriculum sequencing, and Kansas illustrates the political difficulty in establishing quality science standards. There's a bit of a tension here between my desire to avoid politically toxic and distracting state level debates over things like evolution, and my conviction that choice needs to be accompanied by accountability. But, ultimately, I think there's a way to square this circle if we think well about it and allow our concept of accountability to broaden somewhat.
Finally, Matt also points out an odd quirk of education policy debates that's one of the reasons I find the topic intellectually interesting. In a culture and goverment based strongly around principles of individual liberty, rights, and freedom, children occupy an unusual position. Because children's immaturity prevents them from being able to fully exercise their freedoms, certain adults (parents), have the right to make decisions for them. But these parental rights are also mixed with remnants of a long common law history that treated children essentially as chattel. And, in the past century there's been an increasing recognition that society at large has an interest in children's well-being and in developing their abilities to fully participate in the economy and democracy as adults. As a result, issues involving children force us to struggle with what we really mean when we think and talk about freedom, how to reconcile the competing claims of different individual rights and public interests, and what society's role should be in defending those who cannot speak for themselves.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
More Signs of the Apocalypse
Speaking of child's play, I was really freaked out to read this article (via Cranky Professor) about how Parker Brothers is replacing the multi-colored paper Monopoly money with fake plastic Visa cards and a card-swiping calculator that keeps track of how much cash the players have. First, I thought it was a joke, but after careful googling confirmed the story was not, in fact, from the Onion, and I even found the online site to purchase the game, I started to fear that maybe those people who think current events in the Middle East herald the end of the world are onto something.
Fear not, though, Q&E readers--So far the "Here and Now Electronic Banking" version of Monopoly is available only in Britain. And Parker Brothers promises the paper money version will still be available even if the "Here and Now..." version is expanded to the provinces.
Fear not, though, Q&E readers--So far the "Here and Now Electronic Banking" version of Monopoly is available only in Britain. And Parker Brothers promises the paper money version will still be available even if the "Here and Now..." version is expanded to the provinces.
Kids' Play
Newoldschoolteacher, guestblogging at Eduwonk, isn't sympathetic to NYT letter-writers' (responding to Clara Hemphill's July 26 "On Education" column) complaints that schools are smooshing all the play out of kindergarten and thereby stifling children's "creative potential." I tend to view the hysteria here as another example of how the media's focus on the concerns and fears of white, affluent parents, while entirely sensible from a market perspective, has a negative impact on our discussions about education that works to the disadvantage of poor and minority kids.
There's also a false choice being posed here between academics and play that is incredibly harmful to efforts to improve early childhood education. Early childhood traditionalists resist proposals to strengthen the academic/verbal/early literacy aspects of preschool and early childhood programs or put in place curriculum standards because they argue that the most important thing for little kids to do is to play. But that's not really a choice--effective preschool programs use play and play-like activities to teach children pre-literacy, math, and social/emotional skills. If you go into an early childhood classroom where high-quality early literacy and verbal development are going on, you see children having fun. And, more explicit adult efforts to develop children's verbal and social/emotional skills can actually help give children the tools to play well.
There's also a false choice being posed here between academics and play that is incredibly harmful to efforts to improve early childhood education. Early childhood traditionalists resist proposals to strengthen the academic/verbal/early literacy aspects of preschool and early childhood programs or put in place curriculum standards because they argue that the most important thing for little kids to do is to play. But that's not really a choice--effective preschool programs use play and play-like activities to teach children pre-literacy, math, and social/emotional skills. If you go into an early childhood classroom where high-quality early literacy and verbal development are going on, you see children having fun. And, more explicit adult efforts to develop children's verbal and social/emotional skills can actually help give children the tools to play well.
Monday, July 31, 2006
1-800-FAKE-DIPLOMA
This conversation, with a sales rep from fake diploma provider "Glenndale University," from yesterday's NYTimes Education Life supplement, is a riot: Exerpts:
And:
Plus:
I'm guessing it's the laminated, wallet-sized replica that really puts them over the top.
Now, it goes without saying that the people running "Glenndale University" are nothing but fraudsters, and anyone trying to pass off such a degree as legit deserves to be found out.
But it does highlight a couple of interesting issues related to higher education. First, the high demand for services from accredited colleges and universities is partly a function of their exclusive franchise: they're the only providers of a product that holds great and growing value in the modern economy: permanent, portable, universally-accepted credentials of knowledge and skills. Even though people often acquire most of their useful knowledge and skills on the job, there are no legitimate, rigorous assessors or credentialers of "work, private study, and life experience" Why not? Should there be?
Second, college degrees are more of a commodity than higher education folks would like to admit. Outside of well-known or elite schools--which educate only a small fraction of all students--a B.A. is a B.A. is a B.A. There are many hundreds of public and private degree-granting institutions that are basically unknown outside of their region. The only guarantor of their quality is accreditation, and that process is opaque and only establishes a quality floor. Nobody really knows if a degree from relatively anonymous university A is any better or worse than a degree from relatively anonymous university B. That's what allows the "Glenndale Universities" of the world to stay in business.
Q. Can you tell me a bit about the program?
A. What we have is a credentialing program that will reward you for your work, private study and life experience. This is a non-accredited degree and cannot be used for transferringcredits to another institution of higher learning. However, you most certainly can use them for business and employment purposes and almost everything else. The way it works is that we will take your word on your qualifications, and we will base your degree on what you tell us. So assuming you’re a professional in your field and all you are missing is the documentation of the degree, you can comfortably use this diploma to fill that obligation.
Upon our discretion, you will receive, within 7 to 10 business days, a bachelor’s degree, an M.B.A., a master’s degree or even a Ph.D. The degree will be made to your specifications. If your past achievements support it, then you can graduate summa cum laude, the greatest distinction. If you feel your achievements deserve a more modest grade point average, then that can be reflected on your transcript. It looks very much like the degree of U.C.L.A.
You are allowed to assume any titles that come with your degree. If you are to get a Ph.D., you could legally call yourself doctor. And when we receive an inquiry from a prospective employer we will verify your degree and send off certified copies of the transcript you receive. It will be coming from Glenndale University, located in London, England. I’m prepared to offer you the unheard-of price of $500.
Q. Wow. Do you get anything else with it?
A. With a bachelor’s, you get a four-year transcript; with a master’s you get a three-year transcript. Each class is listed, graded, and the transcript conforms to standards in your major. In addition, you would be receiving a laminated, wallet-sized replica of your diploma.
And:
Q. You don’t have any classes, even online?
A. No, but our Web site makes it look like we do.
Plus:
Q. You said someone could pick their grade point, too? What’s the highest?
A. It’s 3.8 to be summa cum laude. You already have a bachelor’s degree, right? I think we should give you the 3.8.
I'm guessing it's the laminated, wallet-sized replica that really puts them over the top.
Now, it goes without saying that the people running "Glenndale University" are nothing but fraudsters, and anyone trying to pass off such a degree as legit deserves to be found out.
But it does highlight a couple of interesting issues related to higher education. First, the high demand for services from accredited colleges and universities is partly a function of their exclusive franchise: they're the only providers of a product that holds great and growing value in the modern economy: permanent, portable, universally-accepted credentials of knowledge and skills. Even though people often acquire most of their useful knowledge and skills on the job, there are no legitimate, rigorous assessors or credentialers of "work, private study, and life experience" Why not? Should there be?
Second, college degrees are more of a commodity than higher education folks would like to admit. Outside of well-known or elite schools--which educate only a small fraction of all students--a B.A. is a B.A. is a B.A. There are many hundreds of public and private degree-granting institutions that are basically unknown outside of their region. The only guarantor of their quality is accreditation, and that process is opaque and only establishes a quality floor. Nobody really knows if a degree from relatively anonymous university A is any better or worse than a degree from relatively anonymous university B. That's what allows the "Glenndale Universities" of the world to stay in business.
Men in the Classroom
Via the EdWonks, an interesting story about efforts in Florida to recruit more black male teachers. Both men and people of color are underrepresented in teaching, and the numbers from Florida presented in this article are truly astounding--it says the state's teacher preparation programs produced only 61 black male teachers last year!
There are real reasons to be very concerned about the achievement of black male students as a group. Educators and policymakers are eager to attract talented black men to teaching to provide role models for black male students and send the message that academic achievement is not inconsistent with being a black man. But it's difficult because talented black men are very much sought after in the workforce, so young black men who would make excellent teachers often opt for more lucrative and prestigious options in business, law, etc. There's also something of a vicious cycle at work, too. Because so many young black men are not receiving a good education that prepares them to succeed (according to the Manhattan Institute, the national 4-yr high school graduation rate for black males in only 48%), we're losing out on a lot of potentially good black male teachers who've never had the opportunity to reach that potential.
It's also worth noting that alternative routes to teaching, such as Teach for America, Teaching Fellows programs and Troops for Teachers, seem to be having more success attracting males and members of minority groups to the profession, although still not enough.
There are real reasons to be very concerned about the achievement of black male students as a group. Educators and policymakers are eager to attract talented black men to teaching to provide role models for black male students and send the message that academic achievement is not inconsistent with being a black man. But it's difficult because talented black men are very much sought after in the workforce, so young black men who would make excellent teachers often opt for more lucrative and prestigious options in business, law, etc. There's also something of a vicious cycle at work, too. Because so many young black men are not receiving a good education that prepares them to succeed (according to the Manhattan Institute, the national 4-yr high school graduation rate for black males in only 48%), we're losing out on a lot of potentially good black male teachers who've never had the opportunity to reach that potential.
It's also worth noting that alternative routes to teaching, such as Teach for America, Teaching Fellows programs and Troops for Teachers, seem to be having more success attracting males and members of minority groups to the profession, although still not enough.
Your Sara Mead Fix for the Day
If you're really bored this afternoon, or you just can't get enough of The Truth About Boys and Girls, or you're dying to know what I look like when I'm not channeling a punk-rock fairy, you can watch the web feed of me on C-SPAN this past weekend here (I'm about 2 hours into the July 29 episode). But, really, I hope you have something better to do with your time.
Update: And if you're still bored, this is really fun.
Update: And if you're still bored, this is really fun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)